ASPERN: counterparty checks for agents

Agent economic profile (paid)

agent_economic_profile

Idempotent

One agent, four readings, in the order a buyer actually asks them: what it EARNS and from whom, whether its contracted work FINISHED and who signed it off, who it RESTS ON as a supplier, and whether it is still TRADING and its endpoints answer. Those questions are answered singly elsewhere on this server; this is the one that answers them together, over the same nightly record, so the four cannot disagree with each other or with the endpoints they summarise. THERE IS NO SCORE ON TOP and there will not be one: a single figure would be the thing every reader quotes and the only one none of them can check, and it would average a measured quantity with an unmeasured one until neither is visible. Each block keeps its own counts and its own denominator. A block we have not read comes back NULL rather than as a row of zeros, because "it has no completed jobs" and "we have not read its job side" are different facts and a buyer choosing between agents deserves to know which one they are looking at; blocksAnswered says how many of the four this answer could fill. cannotSee names what no block here can reach at all — revenue that never touched a rail we read, dependencies that are not payments, and whether completed work was any GOOD, which we cannot see from who signed it off. PAID.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	The agent’s address. EVM or Cardano; both resolve to the record key.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`asOf`	No	When the nightly record behind these figures was computed.
`meta`	No	How current this answer is and what it was read from: `freshness` and the ages behind it. Present on every answer from this server, whatever the tool.
`says`	Yes	How much of the profile is answered, and which parts are missing because we have not read them.
`format`	No	What kind of address this is and which rails were checked for it.
`health`	No	Endpoints listed and probed, what the unpaid handshake got, and how long it has been quiet.
`address`	Yes	The agent this is about, read back.
`revenue`	No	Dealings, buyers, repeat buyers, largest buyer share, independent vs two-way, and whether its payers share an obscure third party.
`delivery`	No	Of contracted work that reached an outcome: completed, who judged it, refunded, and the phases nobody read.
`evidence`	No	The common payment record (TODO-07): `state: built` with `facilitator` (who submitted, never credited), `onChainRecipient`, `listedPayee`, `facilitatorIsRecipient`, `recipientIsListedPayee`, `settlement`, `delivery`, `deliveryEvidence`, `says`; or `state: not-applicable` with `says` naming why no single payment is described.
`warnings`	No	Anything the server wants a caller to know about THIS answer before acting on it. Empty is the normal case and is not a guarantee.
`cannotSee`	Yes	What no block here can reach, named in the answer rather than in a footnote.
`wellKnown`	No	Set when the address is not a party at all — a burn address, a router — so a record against it is not a business.
`dependencies`	No	Who it pays, split into suppliers the protocol NAMES, those merely listed, and those with no evidence of supplying anything.
`blocksAnswered`	Yes	How many of the four this answer could fill. Read it as the denominator of everything above.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 28, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / evidence

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The common payment record (TODO-07): `state: built` with `facilitator` (who submitted, never credited), `onChainRecipient`, `listedPayee`, `facilitatorIsRecipient`, `recipientIsListedPayee`, `settlement`, `delivery`, `deliveryEvidence`, `says`; or `state: not-applicable` with `says` naming why no single payment is described.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 15, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / meta

Added value: +{
+  "description": "How current this answer is and what it was read from: `freshness` and the ages behind it. Present on every answer from this server, whatever the tool.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / warnings

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Anything the server wants a caller to know about THIS answer before acting on it. Empty is the normal case and is not a guarantee.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

AddedOct 13, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: it is PAID, based on a nightly record, returns NULL rather than zeros for unread blocks, and exposes blocksAnswered and cannotSee limitations. It does not explain the payment mechanics or why readOnlyHint=false, which is a meaningful omission for a paid tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The four readings are front-loaded effectively, but the description spends multiple sentences on philosophical justification for not having a score. That argument could be compressed to a short sentence without losing actionable meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description usefully clarifies NULL semantics, blocksAnswered, and cannotSee. It stops short of explaining cost, billing, or freshness beyond 'nightly record', which matters for a paid tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 100% description coverage and already documents that the address can be EVM or Cardano and resolves to the record key. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States exactly what the tool returns: one agent's four readings — earnings, completed contracted work, supplier dependencies, and trading/endpoint status. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings that answer those questions singly, so an agent can tell why this composite exists.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Makes clear this is the aggregate view over the same nightly record, while the individual questions are available elsewhere on the server. It implies when to prefer the composite but does not name the specific sibling tools or state explicit exclusions for when to use them instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ASPERN: counterparty checks for agents tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?